Thanks, that saved me from defending myself!oops sorry it wasn't you!!! my bad. mistake your nick
Thanks, that saved me from defending myself!oops sorry it wasn't you!!! my bad. mistake your nick
I dislike Talking about Refs at all It's used by losing teams as an excuse or by talking heads to manufacture narrative/court controversy
However Refs in the RWC have erred by NOT sending off players
The two Samoans clowns "tackles" were diabolical That should have been 2 red cards Likewise with Reece Hodge
Fans considerations are irrelevant They'll continue to attend game regardless Player safety comes 1st
Late in the USA vs ENG match today US player get badly hurt whilst ENG have ball Game is stopped Immediately ENG on attack & likely to score Good work by Ref
There should be a bunch of players getting sent off for foul play
Long may it continue Players adapt their techniques Coaches adapt as well Or else players get dropped & coaches get sacked
No one solution is acceptable
It would be a quite high level citing wouldnt it? high with intent off the ball with force. No mitigation. And completly reckless.
Has their seriously been no mention of this incident?
I think you have a misconception about the fans though. Remember that Journalists, Administrators and even citing commissioners are all in some shape or form a fan of rugby. While many of us with no official affiliation to a team or governing body use social media, to either point out issues of frustration/contention/double standards. Whether or not it's a big issue, that depends on how it's received by others as well as the media and the administrators.
I think in this day and age, the voice of the public is something that shouldn't be underestimated, because the weight it can potentially carry.
And you are wrong about attendance. It might not affect this World Cup, but it will definitely have an effect on upcoming tours and events after the WC. Especially if there is some sort of indication that some team got shafted.
Nothing, Zip, Nada.
But what is interesting is that the journo's kept on saying that the Citing Commissioner only has 24 hours after the match to make a decision on an incident, which is in fact incorrect, as the Citing Commissioner has 36 hours according to the WR document I shared earlier in the thread. And before that 36 hours were up, the videos of the incidents were already circulated on social media.
World Rugby are definitely on the right path in regards to dangerous tackles. I think referees as much as players are having to work hard to adapt to the new framework. World Rugby are the ones that will be held accountable if they end up with a player not being able to walk again. They want to protect their brand and their assets and so they should. It's in everyone's best interests. It means that they have to make people more accountable for their actions.
seems the ref is looking more to the left.For those interested (and I realise not all are... and I recognise the jeopardy in frame by frame stuff). Here's the Goneva one that I mentioned up-thread. For those that can access ITV player it's available here in full
https://www.itv.com/hub/rugby-world-cup/1a9562a0109
1:50:35 of the broadcast or 65:29 of the game clock. You can see it better in the video than the stills.
I really would be interested in other people's thoughts on this one. Most incidents (Read the clear exception) are kind of legitimate actions that have been incorrectly executed (Mr Quill does not have that excuse). The Samoan ones horribly so. I'd argue Hodge less and Piers Francis is marginal (as post above).
However this one? Uruguay 14 joins the ruck legitimately. Goneva wrestles him out, flips him onto his back, withdraws his arm and then smashes his elbow directly into the players face. It's a proper cheap shot and surely the kind of thing that World Rugby wish to eliminate? The ref is right there and looking straight at the incident. Is smashing people in the face in rucks acceptable?
View attachment 7505
The flowchart is far from plain and unambiguous though.[
In real time, I agree with you and wouldn't blame referees for going to the TMO more often over anything that they're unsure of, although no doubt there would be plenty of complaints. Once time is off and the TMO has been consulted, I have no sympathy. If the best referees within the game aren't capable of memorising a flowhart and following it, World Rugby need to be working on attrating people of greater quality to refereeing. The same goes if the magnitude of the situation is impairing referees' decision making process causing them to bottle big decisions or to be unduely harsh because they're concious of not wanting to bottle big decisions. My suspicion is that in the Samoa game, the pressure of the situation cause Poite to subliminally look extra hard for mitigation or to apply to much significance to what mitigation there was, leading to him bottling two big decisions.
Yeah... because all people with names starting with z are the same....oops sorry it wasn't you!!! my bad. mistake your nick
[
In real time, I agree with you and wouldn't blame referees for going to the TMO more often over anything that they're unsure of, although no doubt there would be plenty of complaints. Once time is off and the TMO has been consulted, I have no sympathy. If the best referees within the game aren't capable of memorising a flowhart and following it, World Rugby need to be working on attrating people of greater quality to refereeing. The same goes if the magnitude of the situation is impairing referees' decision making process causing them to bottle big decisions or to be unduely harsh because they're concious of not wanting to bottle big decisions. My suspicion is that in the Samoa game, the pressure of the situation cause Poite to subliminally look extra hard for mitigation or to apply to much significance to what mitigation there was, leading to him bottling two big decisions.
The flowchart is far from plain and unambiguous though.
I'd be quicker to place the blame on world rugby definitely. My view is that they've made a rushed attempt to show they're enforcing safety and it's exposed their bad management considering no refs are on the same page. It wouldn't surprise me if the French refs weren't briefed in French at all considering they've had the most difficulty with it.Fair play, I thought that it was, but must confess that I can't recall it clearly - one of the many reasons that I'm not an international referee! In which case, World Rugby must shoulder at least some of the blame. It would be interesting to know how they test these kinds of things. I would be easy enough to supply all the WC referees with clips of incidents and ask them what the sanction should be (and why) for each of them. If the answers aren't consistent across the board, it would be obvious that the guideance isn't clear enough.
You've caught me out!Yeah... because all people with names starting with z are the same....
Racist!
This is difficult one as I've also liked a contradictory post. That being the Alpha Bro's one below yours. I've noticed a tendency within rugby circles for people in authority to state definitively that things are unambiguous when in fact there's a massive degree of wiggle room. Here's the flow chart in question. The problem is it's not like cricket where in the main your dealing with facts e.g. "is it pitching in-line? Is it hitting the stumps? "Is it a no ball" Here's the communication.
View attachment 7508
For the most prevalent issue i.e. the tackle you hit this "Degree of Danger". Well there's guidance but it's not definitive. There's then the subjective matter of whether to apply mitigation. If you look at the factors to consider they are again a bit woolly "and / or time before contact" how much? 5 milliseconds? 10 minutes? Then you move on to "must be clear and obvious............." This is where I believe Poite and Graham Hughes got it entirely wrong in the Samoa vs Russia game and I agree they basically folded under pressure. Pretty much all of the factors against mitigation were present but also most of the video signs indicating a higher degree of danger were present too. However as soon as mitigation is allowed due to it's positioning in the flow chart and without weighting i.e. danger vs mitigation the most likely outcome is reduction in sanction. IMO the mitigation elements need strengthening along the lines of "If the attempt to tackle clearly endangers the head / neck of the ball carrier then only exceptional mitigation should be considered." Then I'd have to define "exceptional" which whilst difficult isn't impossible. Something along the lines of "The actions of the ball carrier or another player influence the attempted tackle in a way that's not reasonably (yes I know define that!) expected. For example a player falling or being tackled into another attempted tackle......."
Actually writing that makes me realise it's pretty much a hiding to nothing! That said I think refs could do better with what they have. I'd even favour a kind of DRS system that flashed the flow chart up on the big screen whilst the ref was deciding.....
Yeah... because all people with names starting with z are the same....
Racist!
I'm not racist I just don't like anyone else.